Wednesday, November 5, 2014

STRANGE: New Starbucks Dress Code Bans Engagement Rings With Gems

NBC Bat Area reports:
Starbucks just released a new dress code for employees, and there is one certain forbidden accessory that is not sitting well with baristas.

The company now has a rule against their employees wearing engagement rings that contain precious gems to work. Wedding bands are fine, but engagement rings with stones are big no-no's.

According to the reasoning in the guidelines, that kind of jewelry is a "food safety" concern.

"Wearing a ring is okay if it's a plain band, no stones," it says on the infographic. 
"Unfortunately, no watches, bracelets or wristbands are allowed. Simple necklaces can be worn under your clothes."
The company does allow piercings, though they urge that "less is more."

Some employees of the coffee company say they don't buy the "food safety" reasoning one bit, especially since it could be seen as targeting female employees.
From FORBES:
As one disbelieving spouse put it, “Now my wife can’t wear her wedding ring during her shift? So whose name do I put on the lawsuit when she’s harassed?”...  
What will this new policy gain for Starbucks?  How will one of the world’s most respected, valuable brands (number 76, says Forbes) benefit from being a stone-ring-free-zone?  It’s a little hard to know, but near as I can tell from the messages of the unfortunate spokesmen charged with defending the policy, the new dress code is related to “federal food safety guidelines” and the company’s desire to “more than double its food service in the next five years.”
 

1 comment:

  1. Hmmm...
    Our company is a electrical device company.
    To comply with the new "harmonized" European requirements, we need to certify as using only "conflict-free" mineral products. Maybe a "blood-diamond" thing?
    It's become a "let's squeeze the productive sector and see how long it takes to implode civilization" thing.
    The Soviets were lucky; they had the Germans to bail them out. Us????
    Lots of luck.

    ReplyDelete